2012-11-28
2012-12-06
PROGRAM
( more )
STATION
MSNBCW 108
CNNW 91
CSPAN 43
CNBC 34
CSPAN2 29
CURRENT 27
FBC 24
KQED (PBS) 23
KPIX (CBS) 20
SFGTV 20
KGO (ABC) 14
COMW 12
KQEH (KQED Plus) 11
KRON (MyNetworkTV) 10
KRCB (PBS) 9
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 584

Set Clip Length:


waste, increasing efficiency, decreasing the budget deficit, and real focus that we appreciate in northern california on clean energy. for example, moving the state's goal to be 33% clean energy producing. it is my privilege to welcome governor brown to the panel. [applause] >> and to introduce our next panelist, i would like to welcome steve ballmer, senior bp -- vp. >> good morning and thank you. next up is governor hickel lipper -- hickenlooper. he is the serieaal a entreprener each of you have in your respective parts. he became very successful in the brew pub business. he never had a single election not even for stink -- a student council. governor? [applause] in keeping with the discussion, he is keen on innovation and things of that nature. i know that will come out. thank you, governor. >> are we all set? i am from the "mercury news," and we're here because we live in a global cloueconomy. it has altered local economies because so many manufacturing and technology jobs are moving, whether it is a matter of costs for going where the trained work force is. we're fortunate

, with the deficit cut by 25% and interest rates at historic lows, does my right honorable friend not agree with me that the opposition plan b for more debt would jeopardize all those achievements? [cheers and applause] >> my honorable friend is entirely right. we are making progress. of course it is tough when there are so many economic headwinds against us, but a million more private sector jobs, a record number of businesses starting up last year, we're on the quite clear, plan b stands for bankruptcy, that's what labour would give us. >> last but not least,up -- ann pruitt. >> a universal health care is what the overwhelming majority of parish people want, something which i remain firmly committed to. however, there are claims about nurses who fail to show care and compassion to their patients. what exactly will the prime minister do about that? >> the honorable lady speaks for the whole house and the whole country in raising this issue, and i know how pain. it must have been -- painful it must have been with what he's witnessed with her or own family. i am, as she is, an enormous fan of the po

that we do need long term -- deficit reduction -- that is important to america's credibility. it is important for america's economy and economic growth. that plan has to be balanced, and that means significant revenues and that paying has to go around. that means the wealthy and well- off have to pay their fair share as well. these should not be new issues. they are ones that were debated. they came up in every debate -- even the foreign policy debate. the american people are on the side of the president and democrats who are making this case. that is not to say that there should not be spending as part as this debate. there has been over $1 trillion in spending cuts. that is a part of this debate that gets lost. just because washington has a short memory does not mean we should all have one and that there has already been sacrifice on behalf of the american people through those domestic discretionary cuts. we are excited. c.a.p. has been a lot of work on the fiscal cliff. we have talked about medicare savings that can improve and strengthen the program and address rising nat

:00 on c-span. >> former congressional leaders discuss what washington learned from the 1990 deficit agreement that eventually helped frame the federal budget into surplus. speakers include tom fully. this is just under three hours of. >> ok. welcome. i am the director of public administration program. i want to welcome you to the session, which we are calling looking back to move a forward. this is co-sponsored by george mason university and the bipartisan policy center. it is our pleasure to put this on and to recognize with all the frenzy about the fiscal cliff that we have a history. some of the history is successful in resolving deep seated hard choices. that is will we will look back and talk about today and see whether we can learn any lessons from the experience. we will go over the detailed program in a few minutes. i want to introduce our keynote speaker tom davis. he has covered many basis. he was the county executive of fairfax county. he was the representative to congress and became a chair and it did many important hearings and remains very active as a speaker and a pol

with the deficit and by the way, we got 2.7% economic growth, which people were jumping up clapping about the markets were, but that's still pretty lousy. >> all of that inventory build. >> that won't happen again u ben stein? >> one reason to raise taxes we have a 1 trillion dollar deficit, but i agree with charlie, we've got to cut this noncess out how we need 50 billion of extra stimulus. look, we're running 3 billion a day of deficit spending, we don't even know if deficit spending is stimulative. we don't have to prove that that's stimulative. we're running such a huge deficit. unless he's a poker player and this is a bid to throw us off pace, that's not a serious proposal. we're not dealing with this seriously at 1600 pennsylvania avenue and he owes the population a lot more than he's showing. >> neil: adam, i'm worried that they make a christmas tree out of this and throwing more and more ornaments because it's the next legislation that we're cobbling together we might as well put some spending in there. in this case, a minimum of 50 billion others like chuck schumer talked not try

on the unfunded obligations. we want to stop the spending problem so we can fix the deficit. we want to get people back to work, which is why again, we take the position that raising tax rates is absolutely not something that helps get people back to work. >> what was the importance of that, rather than just going ahead with visas that you agree are very, very important? >> well, again, what we believe is this was the first step forward in terms of trying to address the need for modernization in our visa laws. and we have a system of lottery that, frankly, i think, is properly replaced with a system that rewards those who want to come here to help create jobs and help get our economy back on track. so it's very much, i think, in sync with our priority of helping americans get back to work, helping create more jobs for more americans. >> democrats have now said after your response towards the thee house's proposal that ball is now in your court, that the onus is on you to put forth a proposal. is the ball in the republicans' court now? >> well, we remain committed at all -- at all instances to enga

rates are about raising money, not punishing success. in terms of the deficit, we have cut the budget deficit by 25%, will be getting an update on progress from the chancellor in a minute but let me ask this. how can you deal with the borrowing program by pledging to borrow more? >> let's just be clear, mr. speaker, about his answer on 60 p. the answer, the answer to the problem, the answer to the problem of tax avoidance is to give the people doing a tax cut. give them a big giveaway. the reality, the reality is, the reality the prime minister couldn't get away from, the deficit is going up, not down, on his watch. we all remember the posters which is airbrushed, i will cut the deficit, not the nhs. the facts speak for themselves. he cut the nhs and is not cutting the deficit. >> we are increasing spending on the nhs and we are cutting the deficit. we have cut the deficit by 25%. there are a million more private sector jobs. businesses are starting at higher rate than any time in our history. this economy is on the right track. we are equipping britain for the global race and on like

. and then this party that paraded around as the big deficit hawks, the guys that wanted to control spending, the only cuts they put on the table is playing at margins, increasing retirement age from 65 to 67 and adjusting rates for social security. this hasn't presented itself as a party that wants to cut spending. on one hand you have president obama's proposal, which most agree is the responsible way of raising the debt, raising rates. and responsible cuts on entitlements and discretionary spending versus republicans who are divided against something that is a chicken hawk when it comes to the deficits, that is the boehner approach, or the more extremist position which is absolutely nothing.รง so this is an extraordinary position for the republican party to have evolved into. >> you must respond to what julian just said. >> i like julian an awful lot but i think what he said is entirely wrong. it's fascinating president obama last july, july of 2011, said we can get $1.2 trillion in revenue where we don't have to raise marginal tax rates and close loopholes and julian says most economists agree, i

the long term effects of our deficit, which are directly tied to health care -- the work that has been done in the congress as it relates to constructing and exchange that will take place in 2014 and go into effect, and the tools that we provided a initially on a concept that by its very nature was one designed by republicans, that there is ample room for us to tackle the unbelievable rise in cost of health care to 17% of our gross domestic product by focusing on dropping those costs. most recently the president of aetna said very clearly -- not only if we drop those costs would we make health care more affordable, we would also deal with balancing our national debt. so these are all very constructive areas that we all should agree to. that the american public wants us to pursue. we remain optimistic because of the way the president has gone out there and is selling this concept, not only in white house public. i commend leader boehner, speaker boehner, setting the appropriate tone in the conference. we know there are differences in both the caucus and the conference, but it is the common t

fiscal challenges that we do need long-term, deficit reduction. that's important for america's credibility, and it's important for america's economy and economic growth. that plan has to be balanced and that means significant revenues, and it has to go around. typically that means the wealthy and well off have to pay their fair share as well. again, these are not new issues. they are ones that were debated. they came up in every debate. even foreign policy debate. and so we think that the american people are on the side of the president and democrats. that is not to say -- [inaudible] we want to remind everyone that there's already been a trillion dollars, over a trillion dollars in spending cuts. and so that is a significant part of this debate, because it happened last year. but just because washington has a short memory doesn't mean we all should have one. and that there's already been sacrifice on behalf of through those discretionary cuts. we are particularly excited doing a lot of work on the fiscal cliff. we talked about medical savings through the programs, address ri

political adviser indicated that medicare and medicaid are the main drivers of our deficit. i know we have seen this morning also several editorial writers indicate the same, that it is important that we put these drivers of the deficit on the table and include them as part of any agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff. as the speaker said, we have done our part. we have put revenues on the table, something we did not do two years ago during the debt ceiling negotiation. we still believe that it is most important for us to address the economic situation in this country where so many people are out of work. that is why we take the position and believe strongly that increase in marginal rates i, income-tax rates, is not the way to produce growth and put people back to work. but we have not seen any good faith effort on the part of its administration to talk about the real problem that we're trying to fix. i am told mr. bowles, some of us will meet with him later today, said earlier this morning there has been no serious discussion by the white house on entitlements, on medicare and medicaid. th

street greed in the form of a $6 trillion housing bubble. this brought large budget deficits. some at the center of the housing crash are pushing to deep cuts to social programs to cure the budget deficit. the c.e.o. of goldman sachs, who received a $10 billion direct bailout at below market interest rates have preached about decreasing social security benefits and increasing the retirement age. main street americans have lost more than 40% of their wealth from 2007 to 2010. nearly one in six u.s. residents is officially poor, the highest rate in 50 years. 22% of american children live in poverty. we're facing an economic situation that resembles the years leading up to the great depression. now, this prevailing budget plan calls for deep cuts, environmental protection, social security, medicare, medicaid. well, corporations and the top 1% get tax cuts of nearly $3 trillion over the next decade. this is not how you protect a democracy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: i ask unanimous

tonight in deficit reduction efforts. it's a path that is sure to lead to many obstacles from the other side. chief white house correspondent ed henry has the new developments in a time sensitive story. >> in a dramatic move today, president obama seemed to be trying to split the budget talks to two pieces. suggesting he and lawmakers come up with spending cuts next year after they avoid the fiscal cliff, by extending middle class tax cuts and raising taxes on the rich. >> it would give us more time than next year to work together. on a comprehensive plan to bring down the deficit, streamline our tax system. do in a balanced way. >> the president apparent shift away from spending and tax altogether now in a big deal could increase the chances of a market rattling fall off the cliff. since the republicans want spending cuts included. >> republicans are willing to put revenue on the table. but it's time for the president and democrats to get serious about the spending problem that our country has. >> the president's move came one day after two other big developments, suggesting democrats

this year in january. at the same time, the deficit for fiscal year 1991 increased in the president's budget summation in february when it was submitted for that year -- yes, sir? >> can i ask you said the sequester order was 31%. >> yes. >> where did it come from? >> did they have a sequestered? >> it grew out of the original holland's 1985 legislation that we adopted it was estimated $100 billion of the end of 1990 had increased nearly $300 billion by the end of 1990 with saddam hussein invading kuwait on august 2nd and the first gulf war. these gentlemen were there. they participated in this long arduous debate. the debate came up to something that is extremely familiar to everyone in this office in this room and that is taxes and spending. more specifically the desire of the president as understand, governor, was to have a capital gains tax cut. but the democrats will only agree the overall rates were increased no such agreement could be reached and democrats retreated on the rate increases while selling for a limitation of tax deductions for higher income. i will give the recollection o

--of course! and more talk of shopping medicare. >> the president has a balanced deficit reduction plan that includes medicare savings and medicaid savings $343 billion. over the next ten years that's more healthcare savings than simpson bowles. >> cenk: she goes further than that. wait until you see a cnbc anchor. who she blames, an unbelievable video. and then another unarmed wrack teenager shot by another armed guy claiming self defense. >> it's the first time anybody has seen him when he was arrested for reportedly shooting and killing jordan davis of jacksonville. >> the commotion outside. >> cenk: well, if he was really acting in self defense why did he run? interesting story. we'll get to it later. and then my favorite video of the day. o'reilly tries to explains gangnam style. [ โ™ช music โ™ช ] >> he's just doing the pony. >> the pony. >> cenk: the pony. all right, and we got naked people. and we got ex-presidential candidates--is romney on the show? is he the one? i don't know there's only one way to find out. go time. [ โ™ช theme music โ™ช ] >> it's time for the president and

. there is no the a budget deficit crisis right now. in the years beginning 10 years from now, we will have very large budget deficits, but those are because of health care costs rising projected to rise very, very high and that's going to hurt medicare and medicaid, not because medicare and medicaid are the problems, but because underlying those medicare and medicaid problems programs are problems with rising health care. they're going to be problems for the whole country unless we get health care under control. that's why we need a single pair plan. that's why the affordable care act is a step in the right direction but it's not where we need to end up. >> cenk: from where it currently is arguing between a really conservative position and fairly conservative position to what the american people actually want, it's not a matter of what i want or you want, do not cut medicare and special security, cut oil subsidies and raise taxes on the rich, is that possible? >> i think it is possible. the obama white house democrats, particularly progressive democrats in the house and senate and especially the new crop co

capitol hill. then eric cantor response of the lighthouse deficit reduction package. later, nancy pelosi addresses the fiscal cliff and middle- class tax cuts. president obama talked about the so-called fiscal cliff and his proposal to end of the bush tax cuts on those earning more than two and a $50,000. ed -- more than $250,000. ["hail to the chief" plays] please have a seat. have a seat. relax for a second. it is good to see all of you. hello. it is good to be back in pennsylvania. it is good to be right here. i want to thank michael, robert, and the investor, joel glickman for hosting me today and giving me a great tour. stand up so everybody can see you, guys. [cheers and applause] there you go. we have a couple of outstanding members of congress here. [cheers and applause] now, i just finished getting a tour of the workshop. i have to say it makes me wish that joel invented this stuff sooner when i was a kid. back then, you couldn't build a roller coaster out of your erector set. i got a chance to meet some of the folks who have been working around the clock to keep up with the chr

our long-term deficit under control in a way that is fair and balanced. >> a reversal of fortune on wall street. stocks trade on fiscal cliff comments from president obama and john boehner. >> no substantive progress has been made in the talks between the white house and the house over the last two weeks. >> republicans know where we stand. we've said it, we've said it, we've said it so many times. >> i think all of us today are confident we can reach a bipartisan agreement by christmas time. >> according to congressional republican aides, they say they have obtained a copy of the white house's proffer here. at least $50 billion in new spending. >> do you have faith in any of them to rise above? >> would it be okay to go over? >> we will rise above. >> morgan stanley wealth management's chief investment strategist up next with his list of winners and losers. plus, how you can make money in these shaky markets as the year winds down. >>> later, as lawsuits pile up and hewlett-packard stock suffers, carly fiorina will join me for her first interview since the autonomy disaster came

their bills. let's remember where this deficit came from. it came from the iraq war run off budget. it came from a financial crisis that rewarded a lot of executives who are still paying low capital gains tax. >> there's a fabulous article on the front page of "investor's business daily" which i recommend to you. a fabulous article. i'm going to talk about it on tomorrow's radio show about the benefits of the bush tax cuts which by the way generated higher revenues. let's not go there tonight. >> for who, though? >> for everybody. in fact, the middle class -- >> that's why median wages actually dropped this year? >> just look at the numbers that obama uses. if you repeal the top tax rates you're supposed to make 800 billion. if you repeal the whole bill you're supposed to lose 4.5 trillion. it all went to the middle class. i got to challenge your facts on that. that went to the middle class. but do you think right now that there is a chance, i mean responding to what peter said, do you think that obama is going to cold shoulder the gop? here's why i'm saying this. let me just go one more th

. they were serious about reducing the deficit and the need to get on with it and had some sense of urgency. they were serious about raising revenue from higher income taxpayers, and that includes raising rates, with some flexibility there. they were serious about reducing spending and i would say to you, you have written a lot about the tax side of the equation. we need to read more about the spending side of the equation. they are equally important if we are going to get a balanced plan. they are serious about reducing spending -- that would include reducing spending on health care entitlements. they are serious about protecting the middle class -- you can really feel the president's passion on that. they were serious about restoring confidence in the short and long term so our economy can grow and create jobs. i think the president has always been for a balanced approach come as alan and i have. our message to the president and the congress from day one has been the same -- that is the problem is real, the solutions are painful, and there is not going to be an easy way out of it. the onl

to the deficit, they say, and it needs to be part of the deficit. the opposing view of durban says social security is not in a crisis. back to our question for our viewers. how would you fix your school system? david in kansas, an educator, republican line. caller: i just want to say i am an educator. i'm not republican. i would make education a completely free market good. i would get rid of compulsory school attendance. --would get rid of taxation a i think you need a wall that separates the government and education, just like we have a separation between government and religion. host: ok. june in wisconsin, independent. caller: hi. you know, the baby boomers got the last excellent, well-rounded public-school education. it was based on the basics -- proper english, writing. for whatever reason, somebody decided -- and i saw a teacher wrote an article on why we have to write all these rules in english, such as "i before e" in english. i thought, are you kidding me? for some reason somebody said, "whatever you think it is, and johnny." it's ridiculous. there's nothing wrong with people un

the president called his deficit reduction commission to give the president and -- an idea what we could do to get our fiscal house in order. i want to show in you this chart, mr. speaker, it's the chronic deficits we have had in this country, goes back to 1970. all this red ink represents the inflation adjusted, 2012 dollars, comparing apples to apples across this chart, the deficit that is we have had in this country, and you see going back to 197 o 0, mr. speaker, which happens to be the year of my birth, we have run a deficit every single year from 199 . you remember 1998 we had newt gingrich leading the first republican u.s. house of representatives in modern times. bill clinton in the white house. they came together to solve some big problems. welfare reform, health insurance reform. folks forget about health insurance reform. we did away with pre-existing conditions. did away with all of the impediments in the large group markets, what they call the plans, had great success in that area, and finally got back into some positive territory. to be truthful, this assumes that all the fede

on that? we did not have the system of the budget deficits what makes it so much harder and just to sort of duty had enough, it is the persistence of trade deficit least not have one and now we do and that is a big drag on the economy. which hasn't been better actually the trade deficit is actually significantly down but not all. we have had some that have become more competitive that is the front on which we need to work. the political debate hasn't kept up with the reality it's no longer the quarter of that anymore. it's the broadest of countries some that need to be worked on and the next president isn't just china bashing but what do we need to do have a world that is everybody trying to run a trade surplus which the government believes it is possible. [laughter] >> then there is this issue of trade and income inequality. and there's a similar level that presumably had relatively little to do with the distribution. if you make -- canada sends assembled cars back to the united states that is and when to be making a big difference to the deficiency. now we do a lot in the countries tha

campaigned for re-election on the idea of a, quote, balanced approach, end quote, to deficit reduction, a mixture of tax increases and spending cuts. here's the plan that the republicans say you presented to them. >> i can tell you what i presented. it will be helpful. >> chris: let me -- >> it is our plan, let me do it. let me explain it. >> chris: i'd like to ask you about this part of it and you can tell me. >> okay. >> chris: $1.6 trillion in tax increases. more than $80 billion in new stimulus spending, next year, and, unspecified nonguaranteed spending cuts. question, is that your idea of balance. >> it is, let me explain what is in the explain they didn't report to you and explain, to people, which is, we propose alongside the trillion dollars in spending cuts we agreed with republicans, last year, on defense and a range of other government programs, proposed $600 billion of detailed reforms and savings, to our health care and other government programs, that is $600 billion. in fact, the health care savings in that plan, are larger than the plans we have seen republicans in the

to the labour party. they want to be in government and they claim they want to cut the deficit. what would they cut? what would they cut? if they object to the local government settlement and the object to the defense settlement and the objective the nhs budget and the object to the education budget, even though nhs schools are going up, and what exactly would they do? the problem is as was evident from the shadow chancellor's response, they didn't have anything to say on these matters but if they had a credible deficit plan then we would listen to the questions they ask us about the priorities of those plans. >> john stephenson. >> this cools and colleges of 270 million are extremely welcome. schools and colleges such as those in my constituency plans on the runway ready to take off, just in a little additional financial support. will the chancellor help those colleges and schools? >> i'm very happy to look personally at the case my honorable friend makes for his local education facility. these are of course other government departments but we have provided the money for education, for ne

. just raising rates on people making over 250,000, would be a trillion deficit -- >> a trillion dollars, henry, is nothing to be sniffed at. some urged the party to extend the bush-era tax cuts, for the households that earn less than $250,000, to insure the taxes don't go up. who cares anyway? >> sure, there is a point in there. i might dispute the numbers. i would argue as the members of my party, i would argue that we have a spending problem. as opposed to a revenue problem. to my friend steve's remark, about the clinton tax rates, that sounds great to go back to 39%. and yes, that was a time of balanced budgets. but actually, those balanced budgets bear little resemblance to the tax rates. in the clinton years, in the latter clinton years, one, we were in peace time. and two, there was a capital gains tax cut as part of the 1996 package. and let's not forget, most importantly, there was a little small thing at that time called a technology boom. so much so that it led to aacce. and of course there were tax revenues. so pointing to one tax rate at one point in time -- >> there is no o

this morning. you made a comment that you did not believe anybody was interested in solving this deficit problem. that about knocked me out of my chair. i need you to explain to me and the rest of the people watching why you said that anthony g. to -- and i need you to expound on that. i will take my answer off the air. please ask mr. reid to not to be such an obstructionist and sit down and listen. have a great day. guest: imitate a few days for that message out to get through from me. there's a lot of concern about budget deficits. in the period after the downturn, budget deficits for in a range of 10% of the entire gdp, the entire economic output of the u.s. they have come down a little bit. economists think to be sustainable, budget deficits have to be in the range of 3% of economic output or a lower. the focus of this effort to reduce deficits now is on getting them, in the federal budget deficit to the range of 3% or so. that is what i mean when i say policymakers are not trying to get rid of the budget deficits. given the economic weakness, a little bit of deficit spending is pro

? >> well, first of all, i do believe the middle class has a stake and a good, solid balanced, deficit reduction plan. the plan should be what the president campaigned on, namely balance. that means we've got to have a substantial contribution from revenues. the revenues have to come from the folks who have been making good money during the recession. that's folks over $250,000 or some number close to. that the pentagon's got to make a contribution and if there is anything on healthcare, it's gotta be about reforming it, bringing the costs down, not cutting benefits. >> eliot: let's drill down a couple of pieces of this. what do you think the underlying ratio should be between cost cutting and revenue generation. last summer it was 10 to 1 in terms of cutting costs to revenue. thankfully the deal didn't get done. should it be one-to-one? where would you like to see this happen? >> you know, i actually don't know that number because i think the question is i think we need about a trillion and a half from revenues and the

out of this deficit. >> we've talked about that before. thanks very much. that is the first hour of "the closing bell." stay tuned. up next, a couple ceos with their take on where we go from here. the second hour with maria. i'll see you tomorrow. >>> and it is 4:00 on wall street. do you know where your money is? hi, everybody. welcome back to "the closing bell." i'm maria bartiromo on the floor of the new york stock exchange. the market on a roller coaster ride today. a slight gain on the session, even though the market closed off the best levels of the afternoon. it had been up about 77 at its best. nasdaq composite picked up 23 points. the s&p 500 tonight up 7 1/2, half a percent. the market continues to watch the fiscal cliff. trading action has resolvolved around this. ben, what is your fiscal cliff strategy? what do you want to do with your money in the economy does go off the fiscal cliff? >> yeah, we were worried about that back in september, october. so even though we like the equity markets going into 2013, we wanted to hedge ourselves a little bit, so we took money ou

, to deficit reduction. a mixture of tax increases and spending cuts. here's the plan that the republicans say you presented to them this week. >> i can tell you what i presented if it would be helpful. >> let me ask you. >> but it's our plan. why don't you let me do t why don't you let me explain it. >> well, i would like to ask you about this part of it and then anything i leave out you can tell me. 1.$6 trillion in tax increases, more than $80 billion in new stimulus spending next year, and an unspecified nonguaranteed spending cuts. question, is that your idea of balance? >> it is. let me explain what is in this plan that they didn't report to you and they didn't explain to people, which is we have proposed alongside the trillion dollars in spending cuts, we agreed with republicans last year on defense and other range ever programs, we proposed $600 billion of detailed reforms and savings to our healthcare and medicare programs. that's $600 billion. in fact, the healthcare savings in that plan are larger than the plans we've seen republicans in the past. >> is that what was in the budget?

to prosperity or to cut our way out of this deficit problem that we have. we're going to need more revenues. in order to do that, that starts with higher rates for the folks at the top. >> reporter: the president did say today he would consider lowering rates again for the top two percent next year as part of a broader tax overhaul. the house republican plan envisions $2.2 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade. $800 billion would come from new revenues but with no hike in tax rates for top earners. instead the plan relies on $1.2 trillion in reduced spending including $600 billion from changes in medicare and medicaid. at the white house today, the president met with a bipartisan group of governors pressing his own plan for deficit reduction. that proposal, $1.6 trillion in revenue from tax increases on the wealthy and $600 billion in spending cuts mostly from reductions in medicare. he also wants authority to raise the debt ceiling without congressional intervention. but governors emerged afterwards treading a line between the two sides. delaware governor jack markel, a democ

the incentives. we do so much money that you can reduce the deficit significantly, lower the rate, still have the group you are asking to pay more, pay more if you're willing to broaden the base. the point i would make is that as difficult as it is, we should use this opportunity to think about what a most sensible tax system is, and one of the pieces we have made progress on, which will have real revenues as a budget deal, and that along with spending and economists is critically important. no matter how we raise or how much we raise the revenues, a small or big enough, we should strive to raise that in the most efficient way possible, and that is including tax reform as part of this overall deal is a critical part of growth. and shouldn't be lost in the mix. >> david, do you want to get in? >> i want to echo a number of the comments, because the way i describe it is if we had actually been trying to develop an incomprehensible, confusing, and globally uncompetitive system which could not have done -- system we could not have done a better job than what we got. there is a something to the pr

. [ screaming ] oh grover! electric deficit boogaloo. 29 minutes after the hour. right back on "the stephanie miller show." >> wow! i've never seen anything like this. >> when disaster strikes sometimes the only way out is to look within. current tv digs deep into the determination and escape. "trapped" experience the drama. back to back to back. >> hold on mates! >> catch the "trapped" mini-marathon saturday starting at 1 eastern. on current tv. rich, chewy caramel rolled up in smooth milk chocolate. don't forget about that payroll meeting. rolo.get your smooth on. also in minis. get irresistibly clean and fresh carpets in your home with resolve deep clean powder. the moist powder removes three times more dirt than vacuuming alone while neutralizing odors for a clean you can see, smell and really enjoy. don't just vacuum clean. resolve clean. [ singing christmas carols in background ] aunt sally's singing again. it's a tradition honey. [ singing christmas carols ] mmmm. [ female announcer ] make new traditions with pillsbury grands! cinnamon rolls. [ f

. tea party 2, the sequel. [ screaming ] oh grover! electric deficit boogaloo. 29 minutes after the hour. right back on "the stephanie miller show." alright, in 15 minutes we're going to do the young turks. i think the number one thing that viewers like about the young turks is that we're honest. they know that i'm not bs'ing them with some hidden agenda, actually supporting one party or the other. when the democrats are wrong, they know that i'm going to be the first one to call them out. they can question whether i'm right, but i think that the audience gets that this guy, to the best of his ability, is trying to look out for us. [ male announcer ] red lobster's crabfest ends soon. hurry in and try five succulent entrees like our tender snow crab paired with savory garlic shrimp. just $12.99. come into red lobster and sea food differently. and introducing 7 lunch choices for just $7.99. salads, sandwiches, and more. rich, chewy caramel rolled up in smooth milk chocolate. don't forget about that payroll meeting. rolo.get your smooth

the kinds of revenue from the wealthiest americans to help the economy grow and achieve deficit reduction and this puts us on a path towards a better economy. >> [inaudible question] what will he do at this moment? >> i would simply redirect that question to the republican leaders, who to this day, have not put forward any proposal on how they would achieve revenues and address the issue on the top 2%. there is no other way to do it, there is no other mathematically sound way to do it. making vague promises about achieving revenue through capping deductions were closing loopholes, it simply doesn't add up to a serious proposal. we haven't heard which deductions they would cap or which loopholes they were close. what is true is that other proposals that have been put forward include attempts to raise revenue only through closing loopholes and limited deductions can only achieve this if the middle class gets stuck with the bill. or if you have a proposal that is wildly limply unfeasible because it suggests that we would wipe out charitable deductions. it is simply impossible and getting som

will eventually get hurt by the accumulating deficit. we have too much deficit. we have to find a solution. we are forced to find a workable solution. they do not seem to have the incentive. they patched things up and come back and another sustainable solution. the more general problem is that any system that is deprived of its volatility, the system becomes very fragile. just like the economy became fragile by micromanaging. >> let me use that to segue into the text. this book -- define for me "antifragile." >> what is the opposite of fragile? they tend to say robust, solid. the opposite of fragile is something that gains from disorder. i was an options trader for a long time, half of my life. i had a name for things that were harmed by volatility. i realized that you can map fragility as something that gains from volatility. things that gain from volatility, we have to have a name different from resilience. i call them "antifragile." people make mistakes shooting for robustness and stability, things that need -- you go to the gym. people work out. they stress their body and their body gets s

on the table a proposal that reduces the deficit by $4 trillion, that does so in a balanced way, that includes substantial cuts to discretionary non-defense spending, over $1 trillion, it includes revenue and includes $340 billion in savings from our health care entitlement programs. >> fairly unequivocal, isn't it? it's a mixture of pretty substantial spending cuts and tax increases. >> we haven't seen the plan. i haven't seen the plan. i don't think the speaker -- >> are you accusing the president of lying? is the president lying? >> where is the plan? >> is he lying? >> i don't think the plan's out there. i think jay carney might be but i don't see the plan. maybe they have a plan. >> jay carney is lying and he's the white house spokesman. >> no. >> they're lying, are they? >> i'm not saying that. piers, maybe they've got -- >> you just did. you just called him a liar. >> they haven't shared the plan with the american people. paul ryan and the republicans in congress have passed twice now and last year -- excuse me, two years ago as well, a ten year plan for a budget that deals with the ten

that bill clinton generated for the george w. bush administration, and turned it into a huge deficit. >> eliot: yes, look, that is a perfect articulation of what has happened over the past 20 years economically. david stockman is still telling the truth about what the true intent was all the way through. quickly, fix the deficit co-alation trying to use what they're creating, the emotional crisis they're creating, and in argument to lower their own corporate taxes once again. does that make sense to you? >> big corporations are sitting on almost 2 trillion-dollar of cash they don't know what to do with. the idea that they some how need more cash is absurd. the ceos, what they want for themselves instead of $8 million or $10 million in cash or in compensation they like more compensation. it has nothing to do with the welfare of the economy over all. >> eliot: former u.s. labor secretary robert reich and my nominee for u.s. treasure secretary, "beyond outrage" robert reich as always, thanks. >> thanks, eliot. >> eliot: turning to weather the prediction calls for cats. viewfinder. [ mal

there will also be a drag on the american economy if our budget deficit widens out forever, if we're irresponsible and governor doesn't work. left with those four choices, think think -- on the flip side, did republicans ask you to spend any nuts -- i think at this point both sides have acknowledged that there's going to be revenue concessions and entertainment concessions. in fact, if you listen to, it again, i'm not a master of the political art here, i'm in washington but i would say if you had these points of views in a business context, as close as they are, i would say a deal would be in reach. >> you see some fundamental level of optimism from lloyd blankfine but a long way to go with the combination of prief pressure and public pressure, like the president is going to exert before we actually go to the flight of fired. i asked the treasury secretary should the president return to wall street. he it must be someone who understands markets, marry. >> me have 33 days to -- head of all pi he told john harwood. marge i will hates have to go up somewhat. he said that's going to put a drag on the

and screaming that can't be part of it, yet all of them privately will tell you what's driving the deficit more than any single thing of medicare and medicaid and longer-term social security, so the mere fact that we are discussing those types of things fit. in terms of the votes, look, if it's going to be a deal there has to be votes from both sides. the reality is -- and these guys, the president and the speaker dealt with one another before. they've never been able to come to a deal. they came to a huge deal during the lame-duck session in 2010 on extending the bush tax cuts. they came to another deal without shutting down the government in april of 2011 cutting discretionary spending by billions of dollars and they came to another one on the debt ceiling as well which was a 2.2 trillion dollar long-term reduction in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling. so, you know, the need to take it to another level. this is a more complex problem, and it's the beginning of a series of negotiations between the two. they are going to be together for the next four years. the president won the elec

the deficit, create jobs. so we know we have to have growth. we know we have to make cuts. we know we have to have revenue. you can't get from here to there without it. so if you read closely what they have in their letter, even though it's bare bones, you have voucher rising of medicare, you have a return to the ryan budget, which priorities are not priorities that i think the american people share. >> rates, can there be a deal done with the rates not going up? >> no. i'm an appropriator for a long time in the congress. we used to have an expression. it's not the price. it's the money. this is not to be punitive on the people who make over $250,000. it's just to be fair to the entire country. you need that additional revenue in order to reduce the deficit and continue to make investments in growth. >> if speaker boehner says that, you know, we're not going to move on the rates, where are we? >> i hope that's just a bargaining position. but the fact is we have talked about it two step. do a down payment on cuts, on investments and on revenue this year and then in the next year, take the t

clout with congress. the goal: a sweeping deficit agreement to avert $650 billion in spending cuts and tax increases at the start of 2013. from the white house came word that president obama will try to build public pressure on congress to raise taxes on the wealthy and prevent tax hikes for everyone else. white house spokesman jay carney. >> well, the president believes very strongly that the american people matter in this debate. because this debate is about them. the question of whether or not taxes go up on 98% of american tax payers is a very important to ordinary americans. it is not just a matter for discussion between the president and the senate minority leader. or other congressional leaders. >> brown: to that end the president met privately today with small business owners. on friday he'll travel to the philadelphia area to speak further on the issue. not to be outdone, house republicans said they'll meet with small business owners and workers in their districts arguing against the president's plan. in the senate republican my ontario leader mitch mcconnell dismissed the

in a winner and a loser. >> our ultimate goal is an agreement that gets our long-term deficit under control in a way that is fair and balanced. >> if the president really wants to reach an agreement, he needs to be talking with members of his own party, right here in washington, trying to broker an agreement. not out there firing up crowds and giving speeches. >> we all know that we've had this spending crisis coming at us like a freight train. and it has to be dealt with. in order to try to come to an agreement, republicans are willing to cut revenue on the table, but it's time for the president and democrats to get serious about the spending problem that our country has. >> but the point is, there is no economic growth being discussed in the fiscal cliff argument, the solution -- there is no economic growth. not possible with what's being proposed. in fact just the exact opposite. obama does not care about economic growth. he cares about wealth transfers, redistribution. >> it's obvious that he's going to have to stand behind some significant changes in entitlements, and i think what they

to reduce the deficit, 63% said no. 86% of the ads run for obama were personal attacks on romney. he won a stunning mandate to not be romney. he did not run on the basis he was going to do massive new spending and the kind of tax increases, $1.6 trillion that he's now talking about. and at the same time that obama was elected president, the republican house, which had twice voted for a real budget -- remember, the president's budget he claims he has a mandate for was put up before the house and the democrats all voted against it. in the senate, the democrats didn't want to have anything to do with it. it's a little hard to argue, he had a mandate for something the rest of his party ran away from. >> well -- >> did not run ads on those issues. >> and, of course, it was a bit more complicated than that. but to your point about the exit polls, it's true, most people said that they didn't want tax increases to solve the deficit. what they said -- the majority, was they wanted both balanced. they wanted cuts and tax increases. which is what both john boehner and the president -- in very strid

in the deficit. at the end of the day the whole thing is about -- it's optical illusions and face saving for republicans. whether it's the notion they may not vote yes but just present, which is complete smoke and mirrors or the fundamental argument which is closingรง loopholes is not a tax increase. of course it is. at the core this is about asking americans to pay more americans to the federal government. this is just -- it's -- bill clinton called it kabuki theater. it's a way for republicans not to be ashameded and walk back the ideological core they've run on for the past few years. >> if president obama is able to come out and say i'm going to support getting rid of tax ducks for charitable organizations, hospitals, universities, religious organizations, i want to get rid of that tax deduction f he puts his finger -- his hand anywhere near that decision, he's a quloon tugoing to be a l every hospital, church, philanthropic in the united states, from the rockefeller down to the littlist catholic charity will fight that. they need those tax cuts to survive. it's a loony toon idea. i

at revenue from somebody. on the state side, when i got elections a $3.65 billion deficit. the worst in the nation. i quickly realized it's too large to tax your way out of or to cut your way out. it had to be a combination. that portion hasn't happened to the extent we presumed it would. this year, we have to trim expenditures by $365 million more than we otherwise would have. but, the grand bargain with the public is, to maintain a level of service they have a comfort level with. to not overdo it, not overextend ones self. >> when grow to voters and say, we are going to raise taxes, what is the pitch? >> i did 14 town hall meetings, no, 17 town hall meetings and got yelled at at every single one of them. we had a conversation with the public about what are the options. if you are talking cutting a budget by 17% because that's what the revenue short fall was, they quickly understood, you can't cut a budget 17% in a single year and sustain the level of services that allow their children to be educate and their mother and father remain in a nursing home and receive benefits and so see

when people first signed that pledge, the federal budget deficit was $220 billion. this year, $1.1 trillion, how can you say nothing has changed? >> lots have changed. bush focused not on spending. the pledge only does certain things. the pledge makes tax increases more difficult at the state level, at the national level. you haven't had a republican vote for income tax since 1990 when bush threw away his presidency. 1993 tax increase, only on democratic votes. then no tax increases until 2009 when obama came in and raised taxes with obamacare. >> isn't this -- you are having republican is take a difficult pledge to cut taxes, isn't that like a quarterback saying they like taxes? >> it's a pledge not to increase taxes. people say why don't you toughen it. you don't want to change it because it is a simple guardrail. it doesn't solve the world's problems, it says no net tax increase. >> in your mind when someone signs it, how long are they committed to it? >> in writing when the person signs it as long as you are a congressman or senator. >> you are signing this for life? >> unles

. let's face it. it's a revenue problem. by definition, a deficit exists because you spend too much, and the president who is the leader of the country, you know, claims that the problem can all be solved by adding more revenue, which seems to me, a fundamental problem because you can keep adding money to the problem, but if the growth grows at such an exponential rate, you don't stop it. nevermind the deficit, you'll never come close to tackling the debt if there's not leadership from the white house on this issue. >> reporter: steven, you covered the issues, and you have for a very long time with distinction. at some point, it seems we're on a carosel of complaints and empirical evidence that does not change and the argument does not change. that is, we have a trillion dollar problem in terms of the deficit, a $16 trillion problem in terms of the debt, and we've got two parties that for all the world are acting as though we think we got 300 million americans in the country too dumb to understand what they've got to do. the only people who don't seem to get it are the republicans a

social security off the table for the current fiscal cliff and deficit discussion, but be very honest about what we're going to achieve in the near term. >> reporter: republicans pushed back, arguing social security is part of the deficit problem because it is no longer taking in enough in taxes to cover the benefits it pays out. social security makes up the difference by cashing in special treasury bonds it holds in its trust fund. but conservatives point out the money to redeem those bonds comes from taxpayers. >> it is money that is coming out of general revenue that is going into social security that reduces the amount of revenue that is available for everything from aircraft carriers and roads to environmental issues. >> reporter: legally, social security is off-budget, meaning its cash flow is not considered part of the budget deficit. and defenders argue the money used to pay off the special treasury bonds in the social security trust fund are no different than the money owed to any other bond holder. >> we're using social security as a piggy bank to deal with the problems in t

on a comprehensive plan to bring down the deficit. jay carney broke new ground by declaring that the president does on spending cuts within the budget plan to be included in the fiscal cliff talks. >> can you also look in the camera and say dear democrats, both for and include some of the spending cuts in this deal to avoid the fiscal cliff. because that's not what they're doing right now. should they include this? >> yes, and i know that democrats except that this has to be a balanced package that includes revenues and cuts and spending cuts. >> yet months ago, that ws voted down 99 to zero. earlier this week, the number two democrat in the senate, dick durbin, insisted maj spending cuts and entitlement reform will not be part of these talks. nancy pelosi has been noncommittal about whether cuts will be in the deal. still, they are trying to breathe into the talks with vice present biden shopping avenue costco in washington, picking up a big-screen tv and an apple pie and insisting he is optimistic of the deal. >> i am. all these folks in the store. they are ing to make a difference. reporter: a p

Excerpts 0 to 71 of about 586 results.

Click for
next 100 results
(Some duplicates have been removed)


Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)